Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the (flock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Commercial Gas Bill. (By Order.)

Second Reading deferred until Thursday next.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATE'S, EXCESSES, 1930.

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That a sum, not exceeding £22,982 4s., be granted to His Majesty, to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil Departments for the year ended 31st day of March, 1931:—

—
Amount to be Voted.


Class VI.
£
s
d


Vote 9. Boot Sugar Subsidy, Great Britain.
22,972
4
0


Class VII.





Vote 9. Public Buildings Overseas.
10
0
0



22,982
4
0"

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): This Excess Vote differs from a Supplementary Estimate, as excesses represent money already expended, while Supplementary Estimates represent money for which authority is sought. It may seem inadvisable that money should be expended by a Department in advance of authority granted by the House of Commons, but the Committee will see that both these accounts have been carefully gone into by the Select Committee on Public Accounts and that Committee has been able to examine these accounts in greater details than would be possible in a Committee of the whole House. The Committee on Public Accounts has expressed itself as entirely satisfied with the explanation given of these excesses. In the case of the beet sugar subsidy the excess is due to the fact that the output of the factories was rather larger than had been anticipated and extra money had to be found for those factories in accordance with the Statute. In the case of the excess in respect of public buildings overseas, it is impossible to estimate with minute accuracy the commitments which may arise in connection with the public buildings which have to be maintained or constructed in many different parts of the world. It was thought undesir-
able to have a further Supplementary Estimate during the currency of the year, although we knew that a further demand was coming along. We thought it would be a pity to waste the time of the House of Commons by a Supplementary Estimate since, even there, we could not form an exact estimate of the amount required. We decided to go ahead and deal with the expenditure, which was incurred according to statute, and then explain the matter to the Public Accounts Committee and to the House of Commons.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: We had expected a more detailed explanation from the Financial Secretary of these accounts. While we agree that the sum in respect of the beet sugar subsidy has to be given in consequence of a larger output, we have a right to ask why the Estimates were exceeded and why the Government were not able to foresee the payments which would be required under this heading which seems to be such a simple matter. This is a new House of Commons. It is not the same House as that which dealt with this matter originally and there are many Members here who know little about the history of this subsidy. Apart from the actual sum involved Members in all parts of the Committee will be interested to know why this additional money is required and why it is necessary that these additional Estimates should be introduced. This subsidy was discussed in the House of Commons last July and predictions regarding it were then made by certain hon. Members, some of whom are present to-day. The Home Secretary on that occasion said a great deal which ought to be made known to the Members of this Committee to assist them in their examination of this Vote.
I do not think it is good enough for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman merely to say that these accounts have been submitted to the Public Accounts Committee. The House of Commons is the body which ought to have final authority in these matters. I have taken the trouble of looking through the report of the Board of Agriculture on this subject of beet sugar and I find there a great deal of technical information. The essential facts connected with this subsidy are related in detail and I think hon. Members on this occasion are entitled to
know of the enormous sum which has been spent in the last seven years in the payment of subsidies to growers of sugar in this country under the British Sugar Industry (Assistance) Act. The Treasury has already paid more than £30,000,000 and the quantity of sugar produced has been about 2,000,000 tons. That is to say about 10 per cent. of the consumption of this country has been produced at home at an expense to the public of over £30,000,000. The rate of subsidy began at 19s. Gal. a, cwt. and then came down to 13s. a cwt. and finally to 6s. 6d. a cwt. In July last there was a demand for an additional 1s. 3d. a cwt. making a total of 7s. 9d. per cwt.

The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that the Debate on this Excess Vote is strictly limited. He cannot go into the question of the subsidy generally. He must confine his remarks entirely to the items in respect of which the additional money included in the Excess Vote is asked for, and he cannot deal with the general application of the subsidy.

Mr. GRENFELL: I thought, Sir Dennis, that you would allow me by way of introduction to mention these matters and that you would allow to Members of the Committee the privilege of knowing something about the background of this question.

The CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow it on this occasion. If I allowed the hon. Member to raise these questions I could not allow the Financial Secretary to reply. Therefore, it- would be a waste of time for the hon. Member to ask for information on these points.

Major ELLIOT: May I point out that these are Labour Government estimates and anticipations on which we are working. Those estimates were not entirely accurate and it is the reason for the inaccuracy that we have to explain and not the principle underlying any of these Votes. It is the Labour Government's estimates which were inaccurate.

Mr. GRENFELL: I am not asking for an absolution for the late Labour Government from this Committee. It must be remembered that those who were then responsible for Labour policy are now in the Government of the day.

Major ELLIOT: Not agricultural policy.

Mr. GRENFELL: They were responsible for the financial policy and this is a matter of finance. We have a right, I submit, to know why these additional amounts are required and how long these demands are to continue. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Then what are we entitled to know? If these Votes are passed a large number of Members who are here this morning must go away with questions unanswered and I think their apprehensions regarding this matter ought to be satisfied.

The CHAIRMAN: I have looked into this question very carefully. It is quite true that the mere mention of the beet-sugar subsidy raises a large number of questions, but it does not entitle the hon. Member to debate the whole question, and on this excess Vote I am afraid it really amounts to this: Perhaps the hon. Member may be more ingenious over it than I could be, but I find it rather difficult to think of any thing for which the hon. Member could ask under this Vote except what is stated in the White Paper that he has in his hand.

Mr. GRENFELL: I must disclaim any ingenuity in the matter, but I should like to be allowed to go on asking a few questions on the 'White Paper, which says that the excess
is due to under-estimates by the factories of their outputs and subsidy requirements. The reason for the under-estimates was that the late-harvested beets were of a higher quality than had been anticipated. Moreover, the 1030–31 manufacturing season was exceptionally prolonged and the factories had insufficient experience to gauge accurately the sugar-content of beets held over for working in January and later. The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries did not become aware of these facts in time to permit of an amendment of the amount of the Supplementary Estimate.
A great many questions arise on that. Why cannot the factories say what their probable output will be? Why has their estimate been so faulty that it requires an excess allowance fr0om this House? The reason for the under-estimate is stated to be that the beet- was of a higher quality than was anticipated, hut I think we should be told that when sugar beet contains 15½per cent, of sugar, the rate of payment has to be so much. For every one per cent. increase in the sugar content, an additional payment has to
be made. Why does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give us this explanation? The Committee is thirsting for information, and the country is very anxious to know. We should be quite satisfied if this was due entirely to an increase in the sugar content, because it would show that our cultivation methods are improving and that—

Major ELLIOT: I can give the Committee that assurance, that it is due to an increase in the sugar content, requiring a larger subsidy.

Mr. GRENFELL: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would give the Committee that information as nearly as he can, as to the quantities and the increase in the sugar content which is responsible for this excess expenditure, I think I could give him my thanks and that the Committee generally would be very grateful to him.

Major ELLIOT: I think I can do that in a word. It was considered that the store of beets would have deteriorated, but they did not deteriorate as much as was expected. Therefore, the sugar did not perish as much, and there was a higher sugar content when the beets were manufactured; and so we are asking for a larger Vote on that account.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: The Committee is grateful to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for the information that he has supplied. There are not many precedents for a debate on excess Votes, but unfortunately there are many precedents for a beet sugar subsidy. I intended to make some comments on the lines suggested by you, Sir Dennis, referring to the particular words in the White Paper. The excess asked for is only a small sum of £22,900 odd, but I may remind you that already £6,000,000 has been voted for the year ending 31st March, and in all these estimates the Ministry of Agriculture have always underestimated their requirements.

Major ELLIOT: I take the responsibility for that. Owing to close accounting, we at the Treasury have done our best to cut the Ministry's estimate, so that there may be no ever-estimating by the Ministry. On this occasion we cut it rather further than it should have been cut. It is not due to the Ministry's
under-estimating, but it is due to the. Treasury's exercising a very strong control in the matter.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Are the accounts of these firms audited, apart from the audit conducted by the Treasury
Major ELLIOT: I do not think that matter will come under this Vote, but, of course, the accounts of these firms are audited, as they are commercial companies.

Sir G. COLLINS: I do not desire to place any responsibility on the shoulders of the Financial Secretary for this Estimate, and in any comment that I may make I am very anxious to assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that he has no responsibility whatsoever for this Vote.

Major ELLIOT: If I may interrupt, I not only take the responsibility, but I have the responsibility. The responsibility is the Treasury's responsibility. The Treasury cut the Estimate on the strict understanding, as the hon. Member knows, being closely connected with finance, that when a super-cut is made the Treasury take the responsibility for the super-cut and for presenting the Estimates which have to be made to the House as a result. We, as the Treasury, defend them, not the Department.

Sir G. COLLINS: I am sure that the Treasury is now the watch-dog of public finance, and we are very grateful for the assurance of the Financial Secretary. I hope that he will apply that close scrutiny, not only to the Ministry of Agriculture Vote, but to all other Votes, so that the taxpayers may in future receive some remission of taxation from that close scrutiny which he has assured us is being exercised. This Vote is due to a longer manufacturing season, and the Financial Secretary has told the Committee of some of the reasons why the manufacturing season was prolonged. May I suggest that there was another reason, namely, that these subsidised factories are now buying sugar from abroad and melting it in these factories, thus prolonging their manufacturing season?

Major ELLIOT: That is not the reason for the Excess Vote at all. It was not
in any way prolonged owing to the buying from abroad of sugar in the off season by the subsidised factories. I am afraid that it would not be in order to go closely into that matter now.

Sir G. COLLINS: This process of buying sugar from abroad and melting it in the summer in these factories is not general among all these factories, but it is specifically being done in some of them. However, if the Financial Secretary to the Treasury assures us that in no single instance did any of these factories prolong their manufacturing season because they had bought foreign sugar from abroad and melted the sugar in these subsidised factories, I will at once pass from that point. The next point dealt with in the White Paper is that these factories have insufficient experience to gauge accurately the sugar content of beet. One would have thought that these factories, having been in working order for many years, would have had that experience by this time. I suggest that one reason why they have not got it is that during their existence they have been making such large profits out of these subsidies that they have not bought the experience of skilled scientists to enable them to know the exact working of their business.
It is true to say that every factory or every individual who makes money readily is not very anxious to secure the services of skilled assistants, and, as it is well known that these factories have been making enormous profits out of the taxpayer ever since they have been in existence, I suggest that that. is one reason why these factories do not have sufficient skilled assistants to enable them to judge the sugar content of their raw material before the end of the financial year, 31st March, 1931. Is it not time that the Government pressed these factories to secure these skilled assistants, so that the Financial Secretary would not have to come here, as he has done this morning, and ask for further money? Already enormous sums have been poured out. The total grant for the beet sugar subsidy since it was introduced is equal to 6d. in the £ on the Income Tax. This money has not gone to the farmer; it has gone to those fortunate factories which might have been
able during that time to have secured skilled assistants to enable them to avoid coming to this House to-day.
There is one further point I wish to put, and I am glad to see the Minister of Agriculture in his place. The White Paper says:
The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries did not become aware of these facts in time.
The Supplementary Estimate for the year ending 31st March, 1931, was introduced on 25th February, and the Minister of Agriculture did not become aware of these facts in time. Ever since the subsidy started, the Minister has never been in time about this matter. There seems to be a spirit abroad Of extreme tenderness—tender of sugar, tender of homegrown sugar, which the Minister of Agriculture—I do not say him in particular, but his predecessors in office have shown to this very fortunate industry, and, surely, after all this time, the Minister of Agriculture should have known, before the original Supplementary Estimate was introduced, that this money might be needed. The Minister of Agriculture, we understand, may be altering the subsidy. Will he find out in time the effects of his new proposals? They are always a little late in finding out the effects of these proposals. They come to this House asking for a small sum, and then they come for a further sum. I appeal to the Government—the Government formed from all parties, with the goodwill of the House—whether they will not take a little more time themselves to consider this problem so as to avoid—

The CHAIRMAN: I did not want to stop the hon. Member too soon, but I certainly could not allow the Minister of Agriculture to go into the question of beet sugar policy.

Sir G. COLLINS: You reminded the Committee, Sir Dennis, that we must keep strictly to the words of the White Paper, and it was those words which tempted me to make the remarks that I have made. Having made my protest against this outpouring of public money to fortunate individuals, I will resume my seat.

11.30 a.m.

Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I do not want to take up much time of the Committee, particularly in view of what has been said by the hon. Member for
Greenock (Sir G. Collins), but I regret that within the limits of your very strict ruling Sir Dennis—naturally a very proper one—we are not able to discuss more fully some of the questions which are very much disturbing the public mind. At the same time, when a matter of this importance comes before the Committee, I must say, speaking for all my colleagues on Merseyside, we are glad to know that none of this particular sum has had anything to do with the refining of raw sugar brought from abroad. That, I realise, is not a matter which can be discussed to-day, but I mention the fact that it is a great relief to many of us to know that the question will come up for full discussion, because there is a very strong feeling in the matter. With regard to the other remarks of the hon. Member who preceded me, it is a matter for satisfaction that there is a possibility of obtaining a certain amount of information within the limits of the Chairman's ruling. Personally, I feel that the explanation given as to the want of experience is quite 'beside the mark, but that is a matter which will come up for full discussion when the whole issue is raised. There is one question I would like to ask, and that is whether any part of this Vote now before the Committee goes into the pockets of the farmers, or whether it is all to remain in the pockets of the factories, because on that point there is some feeling that the farmers do not get quite a fair deal.

Major ELLIOT: That is easily answered. A very large portion goes into the pockets of the farmers, but this is due to the actual excess of sugar content of beet so that there has been a more favourable result to the farmers.

Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: That answer is very gratifying to every one of us. I am the last man who would detain the Committee on what is a technicality. What has already been pointed out will give the greatest relief to many in realizing that these important points are well under consideration, and they will receive the very careful attention of the Minister. I am sure the public will realise more than they have done how very serious is this issue.

Colonel Sir JAMES REYNOLDS: In view of your -Ruling, Sir Dennis, it is, of
course, impossible to broaden out the general question in connection with the beet sugar subsidy, and the whole question of the activities of the refineries connected with beet sugar. I came to the House to-day hoping to have an opportunity of saying something on these matters, hut, in view of your Ruling, it is, of course, impossible for me to do so.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I am one of those who believe that it is the duty of the House of Commons to look into Estimates most carefully. As far as the first part of the Vote is concerned, I think we may say that we have come out of it rather well, because it will be seen
that the late-harvested beets were of a higher quality.
This Vote has arisen because, not the present Minister of Agriculture, the previous Minister always underestimated the capacity of the farmers. In this particular case the farmer has produced a higher quality of sugar beet than was expected. That is an extraordinary thing in the past year, because the quality of beet sugar is always liable to be low in a wet season, and we had a particularly wet season. So that really the wet season and a higher quality of the beet than was expected is the real reason why we have to find this £22,000, and I think that in the circumstances we have come out of it with amazing good fortune. If we had had a dry season, the grossly inaccurate estimate of the predecessor of the present Minister of Agriculture might have been very much larger. In these circumstances, as one who is most critical on these occasions I think that, realising the enormity of the inaccuracy of the last Minister of Agriculture, we have come out of it very well.
The second part of the Vote, however, is serious and a matter of grave concern. A cut was to be made of £20,000 in the original Estimate; that was then reduced to £10,000, so that the hopes of the taxpayers were halved. Even that £10,000 was too much, and it was again reduced to £8,675. This means that the orginal sum has been twice reduced, and the House is entitled to some explanation. I notice that it has reference to public buildings abroad. Is the increased expenditure due to the fall in the value of the pound?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that this is entirely in connection with expenditure in the year ended 31st March, 1931.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I was trying to make excuses for him, but apparently I was not very lucky, so I shall have to fall back on the position of asking for an explanation. This is a fault which occurred in the past, and we cannot mend it now, but I should like an assurance that my right hon. Friend is looking at this matter with a greater shrewdness than we had from his predecessor, and that he will do his best to see that this sort of thing does not occur in future.

Mr. RHYS: I notice that the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts states that the Committee learned that the Treasury were informed in March last year that an excess would probably be incurred. I should like to ask when the factories finally told the Treasury what their requirements would be, because it seems that for a whole year the Minister of Agriculture has known that there would be an excess requirement before the end of the last financial year. I am not endeavouring to attack the Treasury; I only want to be satisfied that they are clear that the control over these factories, as far as grants are concerned, is adequate, and to ask the Financial Secretary whether he does not think that a year is a long interval before Parliament is told of the excess.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The extraordinary but usual speech of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) makes it clear that either the Member has not read the Vote, or, as is so frequently the case, he has read the Vote and the explanation without applying any native intelligence to it. I want to protest against this unnecessary attack upon the officials in the box, who have no opportunity of replying, for this under-estimate during the last Government.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I never attacked the officials, and my hon. Friend should not say that. I attacked the last Minister.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: As the officials advise Ministers, not excluding those in
the present Government, if the hon. Member attacks the Government it reflects on those who advise them.

The CHAIRMAN: It is well known that Ministers are always held to be responsible, and an occasion of this sort cannot be used to make an attack upon the permanent officials.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I want to draw attention to the actual wording of the explanation to this Vote:
The reason for the under-estimates was that the late-harvested beets were of a higher quality than had been anticipated. Moreover, the 1930–31 manufacturing season was exceptionally prolonged and the factories had insufficient experience to gauge accurately the sugar-content of beets held over for working in January and later.
So not the Government, nor the Minister, but the factory owners were the people who had to make the estimate.

Major ELLIOT: I think, perhaps, that the hon. Gentleman did not accurately hear the speech of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), which was devoted to the second part of the Vote concerning public buildings. It had nothing whatever to do with factories.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot himself have been listening very much. It is true that in the latter part of the hon. Member's speech, he referred to the second Vote. The former part was devoted to the £22,000 Vote for the beet-sugar subsidy. The only point about that Vote is that by some fortunate circumstance the sugar content in the latter part of the crop was larger than was originally anticipated, and on the basis of a predetermined price any increase in the sugar content implies an increase in subsidy payments. Therefore, this sum of money which we are asked to vote to-day is due to a stroke of good fortune. I should like to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether the profits that have been made in the past are likely to continue, and whether, when looking to the future of this industry, the sugar content, improved methods, and the general results, will occupy the attention of the Government. This sum is not large, and. I should like to ask the Financial Secretary whether, as a result of the extraordinary season, more workmen were employed.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member must not continue his speech on that subject.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Would it be in order to ask how this £22,000 would be allocated Would it be sent direct to the factories, and if so, in what proportion would it be divided between the factory owners and the beet producers?

The CHAIRMAN: That, again, is a question of the administration of the subsidy generally, and it cannot be raised on the excess grant.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: If we are unable to put questions as to the ultimate destination of the sum referred to in the Vote I do not see how the Debate can be carried further. All I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that there is great disquiet in all parts of the country with respect to these payments, and that I hope the Government, when considering their general comprehensive agricultural policy, will not lose sight of the fact that this disquiet does exist.

Mr. DENMAN: The Committee are rightly critical of an Excess Vote, which is something of an abnormality in our financial system, and it is only courteous to this Committee that a Member of the Public Accounts Committee should express their view on this matter. The Public Accounts Committee have the strongest objection in principle to an Excess Vote. In this House we are accustomed for money to be voted in advance and if there is any surplus it is surrendered, but the question we had to consider was whether in the present circumstances this was a reasonable procedure, and we unanimously decided that in each of these cases the Government was abundantly justified in proceeding by the method of the Excess Vote. It was clear that the Ministry of Agriculture could not know the facts in time to present an ordinary Supplementary Estimate of any real value; it would have been a guess which would have demanded more public money than was absolutely needed, arid in the circumstances the Excess Vote was obviously the correct procedure. There is no doubt that in each case the sums of money were properly demanded and properly expended, and, as to the method, the Public
Accounts Committee unanimously decided that it was the right one in the circumstances.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

REPORT [11th February].

Resolutions reported;

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1931.

CLASS I.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,550, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and expenses of the Civil Service Commission."

2."That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including the Expenses of Coinage, and the Expenses of the preparation of Medals, Dies for Postage and other Stamps, and His Majesty's Seals."

CLASS VII.

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £156,975, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Property in the occupation of the Crown for the Public Service, and for Rates on Buildings occupied by Representatives of British Dominions and of Foreign Powers; and to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department, and a Grant in Aid of the Expenses of the London Fire Brigade."

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £85,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will cone in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Stationery, Printing, Paper, Binding and Printed Books for the Public Service; to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including Reports of Parliamentary Debates."

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £75,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Inland. Revenue Department."

CLASS II

6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £89,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the rear ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Expenses in connection with His Majesty's Embassies, Missions and Consular Establishments Abroad, and other expenditure chargeable to the Consular Vote; certain special Grants, including a Grant in Aid; Sundry Services arising out of the War; and a Loan to the European Commission of the Danube."

CLASS III.

7. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,290, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature and Court of Criminal Appeal of Northern Ireland and of the Land Registry of Northern Ireland, as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund, and other Expenses."

CLASS VI.

8. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £45,000. be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of certain Services transferred from the Mercantile Marine Fund and other Services connected with the Mercantile Marine, including the Coastguard, General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen, Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, and Grants to the General Lighthouse Fund and other Lighthouse Authorities."

CLASS II.

9. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £34,750, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March,1932, for sundry Colonial and Middle Eastern Services under His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, including certain Non-effective Services and Grants in Aid."

First, Second, and Third Resolutions agreed to.

Fourth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made. and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I wish to ask a few questions on this very large Supplementary Estimate of £85,000 which has been caused by additional expenditure upon stationery and printing. I wish to know how much of this additional sum is required for the Government Stationery Office, which, I believe, turns out a very
considerable amount of the stationery which we use. It was thought at one time that the Stationery Office might effect a saving, but apparently we are now to have increased Supplementary Estimates in respect of it, and I think the House is entitled to have an explanation on that point. Under paragraph (E) there is apparently a very large increase in the expenditure upon Parliamentary publications, etc. I do not wish to ask for details, but I would like an assurance from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that he is doing his level best to secure economy, and hope he will give us a real assurance that on every occasion he will oppose any unnecessary expenditure on stationery and printing. Members often make demands which mean an increased expenditure for printing and I ask him to take this opportunity of saying that he and his Department would like to see the demands of the House for additional printing limited as much as possible.

Mr. ATTLEE: I would like to support the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) in one thing, and that is in his plea for a saving on the amount of printing. Perhaps we might get out an estimate of the total cost of printing the remarks of the hon. Member for Torquay in this House in the last few years, and it might then be presented to him for his observations.

Mr. GROVES: I feel that the greater the publicity which our Debates here secure the better it will be, and I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to consider whether it is not opportune to reduce the price of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Debates from 6d. to 3d. It would mean that more would be printed and more would be sold, and in the long run we should not be out of pocket.

Major ELLIOT: I am ready to give the assurance which the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) desires. We shall supervise very closely as all hon. Members would desire us to do, any demands for printing and publication. As to the suggestion that we should charge less for the Parliamentary Debates it might very well be that greater circulation would simply mean increased loss, and that we should not make the increased revenue that the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) suggests. I shall
do my best to reduce the amount of printing necessary. I have already taken the opportunity to call the attention of hon. Members to the desirability that Questions should be submitted rather by letter to the Department than by Questions involving the preparation of long printed returns, which simply swell out the OFFICIAL REPORT and are not of great interest except to a very limited number of persons. I am sure the House will be desirous, in the future as in the past, that 'due publicity should be given and that a reasonable amount of the printing and publication of its OFFICIAL -REPORT is available for the use of hon. Members.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I have an answer to the other point I raised as to bow much of this increase is due to your Stationery Office?

Major ELLIOT: As a matter of fact, the expenses of the Stationery Department cover themselves, and there is a slight surplus. No part of this increase is due to the Stationery Department.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution", put, and agreed to.

Fifth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth. agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. ATTLEE: This Supplementary Estimate passed through Committee and we had no explanation as to the reasons for the increase in the salaries of the Inland Revenue Department. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary will give us a reason for the increase in the original estimate by something like £295,000, and will say whether it is due to the great efforts that have been made to collect Income Tax, or what it is. The point I would like to call attention to is under Sub-head A, a saving of £204,000 for the Land Valuation Office. This saving is due to the strangling of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer's baby, the Valuation Department. Incidentally, it is interesting to know how the Department has made this saving of £204,000. I will draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to what really happened. It is a rather peculiar thing, this saving of salaries. Everybody knows
that the Valuation Department was abolished by the clamour of hon. Members of this House.
12 n.
I have particulars of a ease where a post in the Valuation Department was advertised by an employment exchange, and a certain individual applied. He was informed that the job was for two years. That was before the General Election. During the election the matter was held over, and the Valuation Department said that they could not come to a decision until after the election. Eventually this man received the appointment, and within a month of receiving the appointment he received a month's notice to quit. It must have been clear at that time that the position of the Valuation Department was extremely dangerous, if we are talking of estimates, perhaps I might observe that it seems as though somebody overestimated the influence of the Lord Snowden in the present Government. Most people with any Parliamentary knowledge must have known that, with a House composed as this is, the Valuation Department would not be permitted to survive. Yet the offer of appointment was held out to a number of 12 n. persons. In this case, the clerk went to the Employment Exchange and was offered this appointment, and on the very day on which he was offered that appointment, he was offered another; but because of the prospect of getting a job lasting some two years, he sold his home and moved to some distance to another town, which cost him £16. He has now to break up his home and go back to the original town which will cost him another £16. His salary for the two months was only £4 7s. 6d. That is all he got out of it, and I think it is an absolute scandal. It must have been perfectly well known that the position was in doubt and the letter might very well have been held over for a week or so. It was only a, week or so after that the decision was made to turn down the Valuation Department.
It would appear that the saving is being made at the expense of a number of people who have been offered employment, or the chance of employment. It is a very mean saving in that respect, and I think the Treasury should offer these people some compensation, because they have not only lost their money and
time, but have had very great worry. In some cases, at all events, they lost the opportunity of other jobs which have been offered. These are the people who are really going to pay part of this £204,000 saving. I hope we are to have some explanation as to the reason for the increase and as to whether that increase relates to the latter part of the year, up to March, 1932, whether it is due to the tax extracting energies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and whether, apart from the saving on the Valuation Department by clamour of this Douse, there has been any other saving effected, or likely to be effected.

Major ELLIOT: I readily respond to the request of the hon. Member for Lime-house (Mr. Attlee) for further information. I recognise that the Vote went through without discussion the other night. It is accurate to say that the Supplementary Estimate is due to the very considerable extra burden of work laid upon the shoulders of the Inland Revenue Department by the decisions of this House, in connection with the Supplementary Budget. Owing to the public spirit of the taxpayers, whose remarkable achievements have made it relatively easy to accomplish the task which this House set to the Department of Inland Revenue, the normal collection of the revenue went on at a rate almost unparalleled in the history of this or any other country. Our thanks are due to the direct taxpayer, and to the Department itself for the loyalty with which they have worked and the smoothness with which these remarkable results have been achieved. It was, of course, necessary for many of the officials to work longer hours of overtime, and, although that is criticised, I do not think that the same smoothness of working could have been attained by bringing in fresh, inexperienced people to do this extremely delicate and technical work. It is well that people in all parts of this House and in all parts of the country should realise that results superior to any that we had hoped for have been achieved, and that this tribute is due both to the taxpayers who responded and to the Department and its officers who have been responsible for the collection of these vast sums.
The savings, it is true, are obtained very largely by the discontinuance of the land valuation. It is not, as the hon. Member seems to suppose, due to a clamour in this House. It was due to a close and accurate investigation of the circumstances of the case by the whole Cabinet, and the new method, which in some ways is inconvenient, of Ministers opposing by vote and by voice decisions for which they take no responsibility, has the corresponding advantage that, when they do not oppose decisions by vote and by voice, they are committed in a much more thorough fashion than they have ever been before. The fact that no member of the Cabinet opposed either by vote or by voice the decision to suspend the land valuation, is a proof that it was not through clamour in this House, but by the sheer weight of argument and a recognition of the financial circumstances of the country, that the decision was taken. I assure the hon. Member, who has on many occasions paid tribute to the dissentient Ministers for their courage and public spirit in opposing other decisions—

Mr. ATTLEE: The last thing that I would do would be to bear tribute to the dissentient Ministers. I think their position is perfectly ridiculous.

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Gentleman has, on many occasions, paid tribute to the dissentient Ministers for their valuable assistance in enabling him to combat proposals of the Government to which he was opposed. Deprived of this assistance, his case in argument is very much weaker than it otherwise would have been. The excess is due to the great task that the Inland Revenue Department was set, and the savings on valuations are clue to the suspension of the land valuation, not as a result of party clamour, but as a result of careful investigation of the financial circumstances of the country and of the revenue which such valuation might be expected immediately to yield. Therefore, I hope that it will be possible for the House to sanction this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: With regard to the suspension of the land valuation, and the saving resulting from it, I should like to ask the Financial Secretary whether, if it had been continued, it would not have paid the Government,
in view of the money that would have been collected from the tax 1 If I may so put it, what they lose on the swings they would have gained on the roundabouts.

Major ELLIOT: I can only reply to the hon. Member by the leave of the House, but I may say that, while what we lost on the swings we lost in this very critical and difficult year, what we should have gained on the roundabouts would not have been gained for a year or two, and, as prudent showmen, we thought that the show would not stand it this year.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I was rather surprised to hear the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say that every member of the Cabinet was in favour of suspending the land valuation. We have never been told that before.

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member must not take me as giving away Cabinet secrets. It is all the more difficult for me to give away Cabinet secrets since I am not myself a member of that august body, and do not know what they decided. I merely drew attention to the fact that no member of the Cabinet had opposed this decision.

Mr. GRENFELL: I accept that qualification. I am very sorry for the position of many of those people who accepted these engagements, and turned down other expectations, because they believed that the continued presence of Lord Snowden in the Cabinet was a security that the new jobs would at least last for some time. It is very disappointing to find that the Government have washed their hands of these proposals, and are allowed to get away with it and be completely absolved from all responsibility towards people who in this matter have been very badly treated. I am sure that the sense of the House is with us when we point out that, while these people were induced to take up service under the Government and are now dismissed, the Government still goes on, and the authors of the Measure still continue in their offices drawing their salaries, while the poor dupes who were led to believe that this Government would continue the policy of land valuation, and were going to carry through this legislation, have been left out in the cold.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I do not think that I can allow the speech of the hon.
Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) to pass without comment. I can answer it in one sentence. The hon. Members who have been attacking the Government on this point were those responsible for the original mistake, and the Government are simply correcting their previous follies.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Remaining Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY AND LOAD LINE CONVENTIONS): BILL [Lords].

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I understand that one or two hon. Members have a few short observations to make on the Third Reading of this Bill. Before they do so, I should like to thank the House for the very expeditious way in which it has passed this Bill through all its stages up to the present, and, particularly, to express my thanks to the Committee who gave it such complete and exhaustive examination. The Bill asks for power to ratify two conventions, one relating to safety of life at sea and the other to the load-line. This is the first occasion on which universal agreement has been reached by the principal maritime Powers upon a subject of such vast importance. When this Bill is passed, there will be greater security at sea for cargoes, crews and passengers; there will be better provisions with regard to the construction of ships and their division into watertight compartments, there will be better and more frequent wireless watches kept, and the wireless arrangements will generally be of a higher standard. The load-line practice will also become uniform.
Only two objections were raised to particular Clauses of the Bill. One was the objection to the change in helm orders. From time immemorial, as the House is aware, an order "port" has meant that the ship had to be turned to
starboard, and the order "starboard" turned the ship to port. That is being abandoned in favour of the direct method. One may generally sympathise with the navigators who were reluctant to make this change, but, nevertheless, they have been willing to consent to it in view of the other advantages which are to be obtained, and I want to take this opportunity of assuring them that ample notice will he given before the new Clause is put into effect. The Government accepted an Amendment to bring the wording of the Clause changing the helm orders more into line with the Convention, and I hope the Amendment that we accepted will give satisfaction.
There was one other misgiving that was felt by certain shipowners about the powers of the Board of Trade. As a result of the very full explanation given by the Solicitor-General, I think we may claim that those misgivings have been removed, so that the Bill will make its way to the Statute Book with complete concurrence and good will. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) for the support that he has given us, and I should like to say how pleased I am to learn that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Captain Moss), who was an outstanding opponent of the Measure, has been satisfied. Therefore, I think there is no further point of dissension between any Members of the House. The Bill goes to its final stage under a good augury, and I hope everyone concerned will combine to make its beneficient provisions a success.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: It is quite a. new experience to be able to agree with the Government, and I think I am right in giving a blessing to the Measure on behalf of the party to which I belong. We ought to congratulate all those interested in shipping, both employers and employed, in that they have achieved agreement in securing the passing of this Convention into law. I am very pleased, from another angle, that they have developed in this a greater international spirit than has been the case in connection with some other undertakings. The Bill will make life safer at sea, not only for the crews but for travellers as well. I sincerely hope, in adopting these Con-
ventions, it will be taken for granted that they are intended to bring the worst up to the best and that no advantage will be taken by everyone to force the best down to the worst. I think I may say, on behalf of the men who are employed as crews, that we welcome this Measure.

Captain MOSS: I am glad of this opportunity to say a word or two on the Third Reading, partly because I was one of those new Members who had the temerity to say a few words in humble opposition to what has proved to be, after all, a most important Government Measure. I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to give the House some indication how it comes about that I was able to withdraw my opposition. It may be partly for the reason that I have just given, and it may also be partly due to the fact that I was faced with the alternative of going down with all my flags flying, but I think it is principally due to the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee, when he said that, if the navigators of the service could understand and appreciate all that the Bill meant in so far as safety of life at sea is concerned, affecting, as it is bound to affect, all the maritime Powers of the world alike, the navigators in the British service would willingly make the sacrifice which Clause 29 undoubtedly entails.
Clause 29, as it, stands at present, still gives misgivings to many who believe that, if it were given as an instruction to the profession in its present phraseology, it might lead to confusion, misunderstanding and, perhaps, disaster. I am glad to think we have the assurance of the Board of Trade that some time will elapse after the Convention has been ratified by the five principal contracting countries before this instruction is issued through the usual notices to mariners. I am also glad to have the assurance, and I know that those who have supported my contention will equally be pleased to have the assurance that, before this instruction has been finally drawn up, it will have the collaboration and the assistance of those associations which look after the interests and the welfare of the men who go down to the sea in ships. I am authorised by two large associations to say that this Bill, creating as it does a considerable and very responsible change in the details of the daily life and duty of our mercantile service, will be carried out in the same spirit of
loyalty and co-operation which has characterised, not only for years, not only for generations, but for centuries, the conduct of the men of the British mercantile marine.

Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I am sure the House is very pleased to have heard the views of master mariners voiced by one who, by his own long experience in that profession, is better qualified than anyone else in the House to speak for them. They have shown in this an example of the patriotism that they have always shown, and we are delighted that, although their natural feelings were against the change they have withdrawn their objection in view of the greater advantages secured by the Bill for security at sea for the whole community. I wish to say a single word as one who in Committee voiced the doubts and difficulties in the mind of the shipping and commercial world as to the Clause which the Parliamentary Secretary referred to as the Board of Trade regulations. The great trouble in the mind of those who were disturbed was due to the fact that they had not all the information behind them. In Committee the Solicitor-General made a very clear explanation of the position and it came out perfectly clearly that the only points that were in reserve were very important points in connection with security and safety at sea.
There was a misapprehension, as often happens possibly, because, in common parlance, of red herrings being drawn across the path, that shipowners and others wished to lower the standard. I therefore think that it is only right that the House should realise that we altogether stand for the best and highest standard upon the question of life saving and security. We very fully appreciate the splendid position which the Board of Trade in this country has maintained in holding up that standard, and we are pleased to feel that now they have been able to hold up foreign nations to the high standard which they very rightly expect in this country. The explanations of the learned Solicitor-General have dispelled those doubts, and the feeling of the community now is that there is no point in the Bill which gives any further anxiety, and, what is even more important, this country can now tell the other maritime nations that it
is going to carry the Convention into full and complete effect. I therefore ventured to trespass for a moment or two upon the time of the House in order to mention these facts, and to add that we all owe a great debt of gratitude to the Board of Trade for the way in which they have carried this matter through.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — RATING AND VALUATION BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Ernest Brown): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I do not think that the House will wish to be detained for long upon this Bill. It makes temporary provisions with regard to making revision and amendment apply to the quinquennial valuations, due under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925. It will be remembered by those who took part in the debates, and by those who have been working the Act in connection with local authorities, that we intended a uniform method of deduction from gross value. That was not found possible in the early stages, because it would have meant a disproportionate increase in the rates of the occupiers of smaller houses. In 1928 the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in a Bill which temporarily amended the words of the 1925 Act, and all that this Bill does is to make a change of form. The Bill is a simple one. It adds 1936 to 1931; it adds to the first valuation the second valuation, and it means that, in London and in the provinces for the quinquennial valuation for the 6th April, 1936, in London and the second valuation in the provinces, the present arrangement will continue. I hope the House will agree to the Bill, as it makes no change, and there is no need for me to make a long or detailed explanation at the moment.

Mr. LANSBURY: I understand that the Bill is for the purpose of carrying on the present arrangement, because we have not time to do anything better, and in those circumstances we agree to it.

Mr. RHYS: As one of the cardinal points of my existence in this House is
to examine Measures which emanate from the Ministry of Health, I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary upon this magnificent piece of legislation by reference in relation to this subject. I have been into the matter, and there is nothing in the Bill which I can really oppose. I wish to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that during the Debates in 1925, particularly in Standing Committee, when I played some part in those Debates, we ventured to make some observations particularly as regards the length of time we required to spread out the provisions of the Act. I think that the point we raised has proved to be the case, and I would, therefore, ask the Parliamentary Secretary to realise, that, though we sometimes criticise Measures from his Ministry, it is not with a desire
unnecessarily to obstruct, but to put them into a better position, and that we are not always wrong.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Sir V. Warrender.]

The remaining Order was read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes before One o'Clock until Monday next, 29th February.